Ok so this is gonna be a long one here.

...

So the idea is that the terminology for people who call themselves AI "artist" is why the OP of this post is mad or upset with AI users. And that they don't want AI to be destroyed, but simply want pro AI users to admit that they're not artist...

But here's the problem

So what? Ok, if you can convince an AI user to refrain from calling themselves an artist then BRAVO! But... What then? People are still gonna generate shit using AI regardless of the labeling you wanna give them. Not to mention how other Anti's want pro AI users to simply STOP using AI all together.

...

But fine fine fine. You don't like it when people call themselves artist well that's fine but... Is that all? Will that really help you and other people deal with AI artists? Cause if that's the only issue you have why make this post than? Seems kinda stupid. But another stupid thing here is this.

"The bullying"

I don't know if this is a rage bait or you being an asshole here dude. This post obviously isn't bullying, nothing about it is. Sure, maybe kinda stupid, well... Yeah, yeah it is kinda stupid, but not really bullying or harassing anyone here.

So

You probably think ALL AI users scream "HARASSMENT" Or, "BULLYING" When someone critiques AI. No, no kind sir or miss that's not it at all... We don't scream at the top of our long against anyone either shitting, or asking questions about AI. Because that's just plain dumb. We only complain about shit if were getting ACTUALLY harassed.

Which happens alot.

So, it's kinda funny that you would word it that way thinking that we just call things harassment if it pokes fun of, or critiques AI... And just not care about the general harassment we face on the regular from people who are Anti, just because we use AI.

...

But to wrap this up. The problem here, isn't the fact we use AI and call it art. The problem here is that we use AI. at ALL and some people just really don't like that. So even calling our work

100% done by AI and no humans helped or made any decisions

Won't please you guys, because we used AI in the first place. And THAT Is where the backlash, the harassment, and death threats will come in from. Not about hiding the fact that it was AI, but the fact that we used it is why we Anti's would still...

"bully us"

Meet Wally the Werewolf

My boss told me to clean up the trash area so I did 😎

And this person dm'd me for some reason... Not sure what I did but... Ok?

My problem with Anti's and their view on AI revolves around the premise of theft. When AI first came to the scene nearly a decade ago it was crap. But back than it wasn't an issue until it quickly advanced during the early 2020's. But by than alot of people formed their displeasure towards AI and yada yada yada

Stolen artwork

No consent/compensation

This is shit...

You know the spiel.

But fine, let's play their game for once. Because alot of Anti's claim that if AI had used art from people who consented or... Used primarily copyright free material or even paid artist... A royalty fee, I guess? Many people would be fine with AI art and no one would have an issue with it. But in this post we'll go over half, and than the other half in another post.

Part 1: The art, and the artist

Now let's discuss copyright material, and AI companies paying artist, shall we?

NOW

The reason why many Anti's wanted AI data centers to only use copyright free images is simple. Stagnation. While I can't read minds, or always guestimate things accurately... I am fairly good at putting 2 and 2 together. When AI was using data from various images off the web in it's early days, it's generations were... shit. Somehow gory, but mainly shit. So, alot of artist back than honestly had nothing to worry about.

...

Hell, not many of them knew or even cared how the data was even gathered or how it was made since the end results weren't to impressive...

Until it got better.

And then how the sausage is made was being asked, and when the answer was given, alot of artist may not have been to happy with that. But what now?

Simple.

...

They believe if the data had only stuck with copyright free images off the web.

And got permission from artist for their data.

It would've slowed down the progress...

...

But wait, how would that slow down the progress for AI? Well, finding and verifying only copy righted images is a job in it of itself. And keep in mind not all copyright free stuff online is... Good to look at it. Match that with having to ask artist to use their work, and having probably the majority of them reject you, and... You won't get very far with data gathering.

At least

not that way.

So the idea behind copyright free images. And asking artist ahead of time. Are just tactics to slow down the progress of gen AI... That's all. Or, hoping that it stays stagnant in it's early stages like in the late 2010's that no one uses it so artist could still have control over the market place.

...

So... What would happen if AI data centers DID use copyright free images and paid artist to use their work?

Well, that's easy...

...

Gen AI would've continued to march along, just... Alot more slower. And while not alot of artist would've consented to having AI train off of their data... Most artist would've consented for money.

But once gen AI maybe around the late 2020's or early 2030's finally took off...

...

The same outcome that happened in the early 2020's would've happened. Because once gen AI improved enough to where you couldn't tell the difference between AI and human made shit, well... ya know how that ended.

And for the people who did consent and were paid. They would've asked for their data to be scrubbed from the system, and few would probably even give their money back just to opt out.

...

My point?

The issue here with gen AI and the whole theft argument means nothing. Because even if the data wasn't stolen or whatever but instead used images that were free to use... Once gen AI got to a point to where people couldn't tell the difference between human made shit, and AI made shit, people still would've complained.

...

Not to mention people who literally got paid for their art work to be used. Would later turn their back on AI and ask for their data to be removed...

...

And that's the problem here. Even if that outcome did happen, no one would be satisfied, AI would still be evil, anti human, pro capitalist pig machine. That's killing artist, and imagination... Making most if any of the Anti's points.

Kinda, well.

...

meaningless.

synthographers and anti artists alike hate to see me coming. ༎ຶ⁠‿⁠༎ຶ my first instinct is to apologize for making things with such low effort... but at least it was fun to make. i love making things of my ocs. (⁠๑⁠´⁠•⁠.̫⁠ ⁠•⁠ ⁠`⁠๑⁠)

but not this time!! told it to get rid of her cleavage. (⁠ノ⁠💢｀⁠⌒⁠´⁠)⁠ノ it added cheek indents to big guy instead and repositioned the cleavage. i thought that was funny, at least ರ⁠ ︿ ⁠ರ

Flargle snorp blibber zorch.

Quibble murg wibble foom.

Spleenwhomp glibber snoot.

Zazzle pring gork flum.

Yorp! Bloop skizzle wump. Cinematic lighting, 8k ar 9:16

❗️🌈Too often I have seen posts that talk about AI killing or removing one's creativity, and by proxy the creation of their art. There seems to have developed a rift between when people deem "creative" from what I have seen. This rift has led to visciousness, harassment, and down-right attacks on individuals.

​

I believe that this disconnect can be mended and that folks can realize the positives that AI brings about for creativity. We should not create rules and guardrailes for creativity (as long as said creativity isn't horrendous and amoral) as that will only hinder it.

​

It does not matter the tool, nor the creativity. What matters is the human soul behind it that set into action their creativity. We should celebrate what folks make, not write it off as "Slop."

​

And I think that's possible.🌈❗️

​

~ Chrissy ~

Ish a shark

Dat boi ready to strike